Guest post by David Archibald
When I started out in climate science in 2005, the climate people ignored the solar physics community. A casual perusal of the literature though indicated that the difference in climate outcome from Dikpati’s (NASA) estimate for Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of 190 and Clilverd’s (British Antarctic Survey) estimate of 42 amounted to 2.0°C for the mid-latitudes.
Since then, the prognostications of astute scientists with respect to Solar Cycle 24 amplitude have come to pass. Some commentators though are over-reaching and predicting a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence, and a repeat of the Maunder Minimum is unlikely. A de Vries Cycle repeat of the Dalton Minimum is what is in prospect up to the early 2030s and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.
The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction. Let’s start with the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, first proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. This is the relationship for Hanover, New Hampshire:
The relationship established for Hanover is a 0.7°C change in temperature for each year of solar cycle length. Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and thus the average annual temperature for Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.1°C lower over Solar Cycle 24 than it had been over Solar Cycle 23. Why did I pick Hanover? Governor Lynch recently vetoed New Hampshire leaving the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid:
These ten Norwegian temperature records all confirm a solar cycle length – temperature relationship, and predict that temperatures of these stations will be about 1.5°C colder over the next ten years than they have been over the last ten years.
The second tool to use is the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm. It is currently 390 ppm. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides half the heating effect to date. By the time we get to the current concentration, each additional 100 ppm provides a further 0.1°C of heating. We are currently adding 2 ppm to the atmosphere each year so carbon dioxide will provide further heating of 0.1°C every 50 years. That said, the temperature fall over the next 22 years should result in a higher rate of carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago:
Lastly, to put a multi-decadal climate forecast together, we need a prediction of solar cycle length that comes with a very good hindcast match. This is provided by Ed Fix’s long ephemeris simulation. This simulation is described in Ed Fix’s paper which is included in an Elsevier volume edited by Don Easterbrook, “Evidence-Based Climate Science”, due out in September. You can put advance orders in for it now:
This is a window of Ed Fix’s simulation:
The green line is the solar cycle record from 1914 to 2010, with alternate cycles reversed. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated. The red lines is the model output, from which the lengths of individual solar cycles in the mid-21st Century can be calculated.
Combining all the above tools, this is the climate forecast for Hanover, New Hampshire, which is a good proxy for what is going to happen along the US-Canadian border:
Solar Cycles 24 to 27 are annotated. For the next thirty years odd, temperatures will be at mid-19th Century levels. With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels.
By then, anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be providing a very welcome 0.2°C to the temperature.
The graph shows that quantified solar effects dwarf the quantified anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect.
David Archibald
12th July 2011
Ralph says:
July 13, 2011 at 5:54 am
…………….
From: The National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
Why the Atlantic is special
The Atlantic is the only ocean where heat is transported north across the equator. Here warm surface water from the tropics reaches further north than in anywhere else. The relatively warm, salty water of the Gulf Stream system remains at the ocean surface west of Svalbard to a latitude of about 80 degrees before it dips underneath the much fresher and less dense polar water. The heat released by this warm water makes the climate in regions bordering the eastern North Atlantic warmer than at similar latitudes elsewhere. The results of this warm flow can also be seen in the extent of Arctic Sea ice, which differs markedly from that in the Pacific region of the Arctic. The effect of this Atlantic heat conveyor is most noticeable in winter.
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sis/atlantic_conveyor.php
With all due respect, the regression in the first graph looks completely wrong. There are five points below and just three closer above on the left, while on the right the situation is even worse – none below for three above. This is definitely NOT how a calculated regression looks like. You just drew a line through, didn’t you? I guess the deduced temperature difference would be about halved if it was done right.
Regressions in the Norway image look correct but for some reason all ‘current’ points in it are way above the regression line which in my opinion may have some statistical significance.
David Archibald says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:27 am
John Finn says:
July 13, 2011 at 2:03 am
I remember, I remember when I started out in this field and the warmers were constantly at Steve McIntyre to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. So I will make the same comment to you. If you don’t like my work, displace it in the literature by doing better stuff. There is no point in whining because your world view is being beaten up by reality.
David ‘your work’ fails the first simple test. It breaks down on the last occasion we had a significant change in solar cycle length, i.e. from SC19 to SC20 which, according to you, means a ~0.8 drop in temperature over SC21 (1976-86). It didn’t happen. It wasn’t even close. It’s not me that’s being “beaten up by reality”
When you first embarked on your climate change ‘research’ some years ago you just about got away with the SC19/SC20 problem because you used the Butler & Johnson method which used the temperatures centred on the maximum and minimum of the current cycle. In ~2006 I asked you (on Warwick Hughes blog) to confirm the method of calculation you used (which you did). However, as it became clear that temperatures during Solar Cycle 23 were not going to play ball you moved the goalposts and changed the time of temperature observations to the following cycle. I notice you didn’t mention the B&J Armagh analysis in the above post. You also fail to mntion the “high quality” satellite observations that you were quite keen on a few years back.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 13, 2011 at 2:20 am
“I agree about stored heat content from the ocean. It is by far the largest source of the latent energy accumulated during past decades.”
latent? So you are expecting the oceans to freeze?
I hope this is an accurate prog. It is what I consider a best case scenario based on:
1) No super volcano explosions
2) No downturn of any overarching ultra long term cycle (e.g. the outright end of the interglacial)
3) No WW3
4) No NEO strikes
John F. Hultquist says:
July 13, 2011 at 9:25 am
latent? So you are expecting the oceans to freeze?
Hi Mr. Hultquist
Thanks for the reminder. Not beyond what is already known.
Apparently
latent = dormant, hidden, buried, concealed, embryonic, underlying, suppressed.
You can take it as:
latent = underlying
Well, it’s an interesting effort, regardless of mechanism, if there is one. A few points: (1) an r² value of 0.53 is not much to write home about. (2) a linear fit has an implicit assumption therein; I think i see some downward bowing in the data. (3) Extrapolation is always iffy, especially when the mechanism(s) are not as yet well understood.
I do not know about Hanover, N.Hampshire, it might have such a dramatic fall off as in your last plot.
We do have though the ice core records, and they do not show such sharp drops in the later Holocene. Have a look at J.Storrs. Hall’s simple extraction of averages from the Holocene bumps and troughs. Transitions in ice are much smoother and much smaller. Considering that the maximum average temperature changes seen are of the order of 2C in the arctic from 1951 to now, i.e. most sensitivity in anomalies is in the arctic I think that your prediction will fail in how fast and how long it will last. The ice core data show a smooth fall off as having higher probability of materializing.
David: I have only the point of where this Grand Minimum ends up on the scales to differ with. There are a lot of forecasts out there for longer than 2 cycles, and 4 to 5 low cycles have been predicted. It’s like everything else with models/formulas: we don’t know all the things that can go on with the Sun.
My view of where the Eddy Minimum lands is somewhere between Dalton & Maunder, and only because there are no 2 Minimums alike.
David,
Ed has stated in his paper and publicly that his model does not hindcast the Maunder Minimum.
Has there been a change to his model?
And I believe my 2008 “model” which forecasts the same result is way ahead of Ed’s and can hindcast the Holocene. Some perspective please.
” thus this methodology is confirmed as valid… These ten Norwegian temperature records all confirm a solar cycle length ”
Maybe I missed some huge points made in the post, but all I could see is correlations stacked on other correlations to make predictions. Other than the logarithmic relationship of CO2 with atmospheric temperature, did I miss the physical mechanism causing these correlations?
The Gray Monk says:
July 13, 2011 at 12:27 am
Fascinating. And borne out by real data
____
A model forecast is “borne out by real data”? Wow, data from the future traveling back in time!
The influence of the solar cycle was, at one time, the primary short-term cyclical forcing, but CO2 is muting those effects, and has since around 1980 or so at least.
Anthropogenic forcing now seems to dominating the longer-term forcings from solar cycles, long or short. I Expect no big cool-down even from a Maunder Minimum, and so the next few years will be most interesting to watch.
Sarge says:
July 13, 2011 at 9:05 am
“…and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.”
“Normal Climate?” What’s that, exactly? “Normal” when compared to what previous period of time?
______
Excellent point. But looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2. But of course, according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary “trace gas” that has very little impact on the climate.
Ed’s model is suggesting, SC24,25 and 26 to be short cycles?
William says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:00 am
Good to see someone cite the work of the excellent Jack Barrett. Jack, an expert on various aspects of chemistry and spectroscopy, has been challenging the more extreme IPCC claims for the best part of 20 years. However, he is very little quick to dismiss some of the sillier sceptic arguments. On his web-site he writes:
See http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/
This means, as we all know ,that we are preparing for the wrong thing.
Questions
-What will be the effect on the jet stream ?
-What will be the effect on the Polar Fronts ?
-Will there be enough snow to organize the Barcelona 2022 Winter Games
Barcelona bid to host 2022 Winter Games
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/winter-olympics/6996252/Barcelona-bid-to-host-2022-Winter-Games.html
– If Earth gets colder there will be less water vapor in the atmosphere. As water vapor is in volume the biggest greenhouse gas, will this cool the Earth even more particularly during the night. ?
-More Cosmic Rays will reach the colder Earth where there is less water vapor. What will happen to cloud formation ?
Just some of my questions.
Don Easterbrook, Ed. Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming 2011
Elsevier, ISBN-13: 978-0123859563
So just when was it in earth’s geologic history, when atmospheric CO2 level was 20 ppm? At what point in time did it reach 100 ppm ?
It seems to me that for the period of earth’s history for which we have actual analytical measurements of ACTUAL atmospheric CO2, rather than some Teraflop computer simulation of possible maybe CO2 amounts; the actual observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is no more than about 30% of one doubling of CO2 atmospheric abundance.
The actual observed real world measured Temperature data for the Earth over that same interval of time, can not be shown to follow ANY sort of logarithmic relationship to the observed amounts of atmospheric CO2; nor can it be shown that such a possible relationship is actually linear.
The Temperature and CO2 data that have actually been real world measured in recent historic times (last 200 years say) can just as easily be fit to the formula:-
y = exp (-1/ x^2) with suitable scaling of variables; and moreover, this same function can be made to fit, regardless of whether (x,y) relate to (CO2, Temp) or whether (x,y) relates to (Temp, CO2); and the quality of fit that can be achieved is at least as good as that for a linear relationship (also with CO2 and Temp in either order) and also as good as a logarithmic relationship; and I might add with the variables either way round.
In other words, it is no more likely that T = T0 + mlog(CO2/CO2,0) than it is that:-
CO2 = CO2,0 + mlog T/T0)
Where the variables have their quite obvious meanings.
Moreover the above holds true, no matter what delay or time advance one puts between the CO2 data set, and the Temperature data set.
And of course the purported logarithmic relationship (either way round) should also be demonstrable for CO2 going from 1 ppm up to 2 ppm, or from one CO2 molecule per kgmole of atmosphere to two CO2 molecules per kgmole of atmosphere.
Unless that is true, we should stop claiming those two variables are logarithmically related. The logarithmic function has a precise and clearly understood mathematical definition; it is NOT just some nebulous non-linear curve; and so far we don’t have any two CO2/Temp data sets of sufficient precision to determine what if any empirical relationship may exist between the two, let alone any cause and effect relationship..
mike sphar says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:14 am
Great to see the divergence of discussion here, as opposed to other places where only party lines may be considered.
___
That’s why warmist and skeptic alike come here, and why it gets more hits than the others combined.
Gates can’t be wrong all the time, but he makes a valiant effort with comments like: “…according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary ‘trace gas’…”
First off, CO2 is, in fact, a minor trace gas; no need for the quotation marks, which are used by Gates as alarmist spin in this case. And as skeptics know [but Gates apparently doesn’t understand], CO2 is absolutely necessary for all life on earth. Projecting one’s own ignorance onto scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientist — is simply alarmist projection.
The only two verifiable, observed facts regarding the effect of CO2 are that it is a harmless trace gas, and it is beneficial. Everything else is conjecture.
Preview of Don Easterbrook’s book available here:
http://elsevier.insidethecover.com/searchbook.jsp?isbn=9780123859563
Reference to Ed Fix’s model on page 285 and 286 (go to Part IV and keep clicking next page). Can’t see anything relating to it in the Modelling section though.
Fig 14 on page 285. Notice how the SC24 and SC25 are incorrectly annotated.
R. Gates says:
July 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
“Excellent point. But looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2. But of course, according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary “trace gas” that has very little impact on the climate.”
Another Gatesism, to wit “current high level of CO2”. Technically correct in that CO2 is higher than the recent past but a Gatesism none the less due to no accompanying sense of magnitude.
Now Gates, what say you about the Eemian period?
“The Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as that of the Holocene. Changes in the earth’s orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as the Milankovitch cycle, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere, although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene.
The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland. At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists. The era closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe,[2] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial era had returned”
Anthony: Is this a guest post by Archibald? If so, it would be helpful to label it as such — says “by Anthony Watts” at present.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
Cheers — Pete Tillman
REPLY: I thought it was obvious from the title with his name in it, but sure I can add an extra line – A
I predict that all predictions concerning climate will fail, including this one.